“Want to” Versus “Have to”: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivators as Predictors of Compliance Behavior Intention

• Author: Gerhard Schewe,Marcel Hofeditz,Anders Dysvik,Ann‐Marie Nienaber
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Date: 01 January 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21774

Correspondence to: Marcel Hofeditz, Department of Organization, Human Resource Management and Innovation,

University of Münster, Universitätsstraße 14-16, Münster, Germany, 48149, Phone: (+49) 251-8322839,

E-mail: marcel.hofeditz@wiwi.uni-muenster.de.

Human Resource Management, January–February 2017, Vol. 56, No. 1. Pp. 25–49

© 2015 The Authors. Human Resource Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21774

“WANT TO” VERSUS “HAVE TO”:

INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC

MOTIVATORS AS PREDICTORS

OF COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOR

INTENTION

MARCEL HOFEDITZ, ANN-MARIE NIENABER, ANDERS

DYSVIK, AND GERHARD SCHEWE

“Worthless,” “money burning,” or “black holes” is how media and professionals

describe compliance practices today. Practitioners are unenthusiastic ab out con-

trol systems, codes of conducts, and systems for compliance management that

are increasing in volume but not in effectiveness. In order to help practitioners

clarify what actually makes employees comply with their compliance program,

this study examines intrinsic and extrinsic motivators of 119 employees from

procurement and sales. We contribute to the existing moti vation literature, test-

ing the self-determination theory in low and high hierarchical levels. Our fi nd-

ings show that intrinsic motivators are more strongly and positively related to

compliance intention on higher hierarchical levels than the lower ones. How-

ever, employees from higher hierarchies show overall less compliance intention

than employees from lower hierarchies. © 2015 The Authors. Human Resource

Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: corporate governance, compliance, ethics, motivation, reward systems

Practitioners have raised concerns that their

investments in compliance management

systems have been ineffective. In a survey

conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers

(PWC) in 2010, 45% of surveyed German

executives reported that the beauraucratic control

of compliance management worries them and

43% of them mentioned that the benefits did not

justify the effort. Explanations for these negative

results could be that the compliance efforts have

been predominantly legally driven, often not

being more than a mere “window dressing” (Fiss &

Zajac, 2006; Trullen & Stevenson, 2006) as well as

ineffective, if the system has not been integrated

into the company’s core activities (MacLean &

Behnam, 2010; McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield,

1996; Treviño, Gibson, Weaver, & Toffler, 1999).

Although there is a dedicated compliance officer,

who designs, implements, maintains, and reports

compliance regulations (McKendall, DeMarr, &

Jones-Rikkers, 2002), it is the HR department that

supports the integration of compliance practices

[The copyright line for this article was changed on 23 August 2017 after original online publication.]

26 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2017

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

The aftermath

of large-scale

compliance scandals

(e.g., Enron in

2001) initiated a

compliance offense

with full-blown

compliance program

implementations in

not only major but

also mid-sized and

smaller corporations.

Therefore, we are

now able to go

beyond the illustrated

research state by

empirically analyzing

what actually

motivates employees

to comply with their

compliance program

(intrinsic vs. extrinsic)

and how hierarchical

organizations

moderate this effect

within organizations.

2008). Recent empirical studies have shown that

intrinsic motivators are not only important but

also more effective than extrinsic motivators in

situations such as more complex work environ-

ments where direct incentive effects are more

challenging to facilitate (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford,

2014; Feldman, 2011; Frey et al., 2013; Gardner,

2012).

Looking back in the compliance literature,

extrinsic and intrinsic motivators have always

been discussed as the central pairs of opposites

until today: Paine in 1994 first conceptualized legal

(extrinsic) versus integrity (intrinsic) as the two

ethical cornerstones of compliance, both shaping

the word and how it has been used in the litera-

ture. Weaver and Treviño (2001) then focused on

the management of compliance activities distin-

guishing between a compliance-oriented (extrin-

sic) versus a value-oriented (integrity) approach.

Finally, Stansburry and Barry (2007) proposed an

enabling versus a coercive control, while Tyler and

Blader (2005) suggested a command-and-control

versus a self-regulation control of implemented

compliance activities (Tyler & Blader, 2005). Since

then, the aftermath of large-scale compliance

scandals (e.g., Enron in 2001) initiated a compli-

ance offense with full-blown compliance program

implementations in not only major but also mid-

sized and smaller corporations. Therefore, we are

now able to go beyond the illustrated research

state by empirically analyzing what actually moti-

vates employees to comply with their compliance

program (intrinsic vs. extrinsic) and how hierar-

chical organizations moderate this effect within

organizations.

First, we are able to contribute to the compli-

ance literature by increasing our knowledge of the

motivational sources behind employees’ compli-

ance behavior intention, including both extrinsic

and intrinsic motivation. The employee’s atti-

tude mediates all outcome beliefs for compliance

intention except work impediment, which shows

that employees act ethical as they are willing to

accept more work if it is to ensure better compli-

ance standards.

Second, we contribute to motivation research

by testing the assumptions of SDT in different

organizational hierarchies. Although intrinsic

motivators are more efficient at the top manage-

ment level, our results also show that top man-

agers in general show significantly less compliant

intention than employees from lower hierarchies.

These two faces of the top management may indi-

cate that the incentive system promotes a “thrill

of noncompliance,” which may ultimately alter

the compliance behavior intention at the top

management of the company.

into the company’s core processes (Farndale,

Paauwe, & Boselie, 2010). Understanding the

motivators that increase the degree of employee

compliance to the rules and norms of an orga-

nization is therefore salient for effective human

resource management (HRM) (Chow, Huang, &

Liu, 2008; Gong & Janssen, 2012;

see also Kish-Gephart, Harrison, &

Treviño, 2010).

The reason people are noncom-

pliant has often been approached

from the viewpoint of traditional

economic thought (Becker, 1968;

Frey, Homberg, & Osterloh, 2013).

It is argued that the noncompliant

behavior is the result of a rational

decision based on a cost-benefit

analysis by individuals (Braithwaite

& Makkai, 1991; Ehrlich, 1972;

Grasmick & Bursik, 1990; Makkai &

Braithwaite, 1994; Parker & Nielsen,

2011b; Paternoster & Simpson,

1996). Traditional economists often

see sanctions as the most effective

way to deter potential offenders

(Williamson, 1975). Therefore, most

of the time, core policies have aimed

to scare off potential offenders by

sanctions (e.g., fees, extra work).

However, current studies show that

control systems and sanctions are

not only very difficult to introduce

(Bowles & Polania-Reyes, 2012; Falk

& Kosfeld, 2006; Lindenberg, 2001;

Lindenberg & Foss, 2011) but also

have little effect on compliance

behavior (Braithwaite & Makkai,

1991; Frey et al., 2013; Parker &

Nielsen, 2011b).

In the search for more promi-

nent influences on behavioral inten-

tions than solely external controls

such as obtaining a desired reward

or avoiding punishment, Deci

and Ryan (1985) introduced self-

determination theory (SDT), which

centers on intrinsic motivation as

an autonomous motivation in its

purest form in the absence of any

extrinsic motivators. Intrinsic moti-

vation refers to doing an activity for

its own sake because one finds the

activity inherently interesting and satisfying. In

contrast, extrinsic motivation, or controlled moti-

vation in its purest form, refers to doing an activ-

ity for an instrumental reason such as obtaining a

reward or avoiding punishment (Gagné & Forest,